Christopher Hitchens - image and impact - Atheist Nexus2017-08-18T03:34:32Zhttp://atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/christopher-hitchens-image?groupUrl=originsuniverselifehumankindanddarwin&commentId=2182797%3AComment%3A1414835&xg_source=activity&groupId=2182797%3AGroup%3A109911&feed=yes&xn_auth=no"It's been estimated that if…tag:atheistnexus.org,2011-07-24:2182797:Comment:14569252011-07-24T12:18:17.536ZMatt VDBhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/MattVDB
<p><em>"It's been estimated that if not for religion in our history we may have cured cancer and heart disease by the dark ages."</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thing about these estimations is that they're crap, and the fact that they keep being perpetuated is -partly- a result of debaters like Hitchens who offer a very one-sided story. Criticizing religion is fine, but if we as atheists are going to leave one one-sided story behind and take up another one-sided story, then I do question the…</p>
<p><em>"It's been estimated that if not for religion in our history we may have cured cancer and heart disease by the dark ages."</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Thing about these estimations is that they're crap, and the fact that they keep being perpetuated is -partly- a result of debaters like Hitchens who offer a very one-sided story. Criticizing religion is fine, but if we as atheists are going to leave one one-sided story behind and take up another one-sided story, then I do question the effectiveness of our movement.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>For once I'd like to hear an atheist debater, for instance, not simply talk about the myriad of anecdotes who can tell about science and religion in conflict, but also a whisper that, hey, it was during the height of Medieval Christianity that the foundation for science was laid.</p>
<p>Ideologues tell one side of the story, rationalists look at the big picture and try to get a balanced assessment of the facts based on reality. I'd like for us to do the latter, and Hitchens isn't always conducive to that.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And I say that as someone who loves Hitchens to death and has spent many an afternoon listening to his debates. But for all the things I admire about him, I'm not going to be silent on his flaws. That's the way rationalists handle things;)</p> The subject of negativity is…tag:atheistnexus.org,2011-07-18:2182797:Comment:14372912011-07-18T00:18:11.831ZThe Doubterhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/TheDoubter
<p><br></br><br></br></p>
<p>The subject of negativity is an interesting one.</p>
<p>Yes I can see why you would make this point about Hitchens and his style of delivery.</p>
<p>Maybe another question to ask,...... is why you think it is negative? and possibly it has something to do with the following. When we have a concept, this concept becomes part of our identity, and if the concept is represented in a way that makes us feel uncomfortable, then we would naturally interpret that as being negative.…</p>
<p><br/><br/></p>
<p>The subject of negativity is an interesting one.</p>
<p>Yes I can see why you would make this point about Hitchens and his style of delivery.</p>
<p>Maybe another question to ask,...... is why you think it is negative? and possibly it has something to do with the following. When we have a concept, this concept becomes part of our identity, and if the concept is represented in a way that makes us feel uncomfortable, then we would naturally interpret that as being negative. Why? Well in a way we feel that our values have been misrepresented. It is not just important what the subject matter/concept is, but the language and tone of how this is conveyed to others, as this is also a reflection of an individual and how they interact within society.</p>
<p>Why would this make us feel uncomfortable? As primates we now understand how the 'group think' mechanism has developed and the need to fit into our own 'tribe' within the bigger social group. Our own personality to some degree is a reflection and projection of ideas within this 'tribe', therefore a reaffirming process of who we are entails and is then linked to the group and constantly reinforced as a whole. It is important not to let any tribal group consume any individualism, which ironically is what happens with religions.</p>
<p>Personally I am not comfortable with being called an atheist, secularist, humanist, non-theist etc. as these are all labels as well. For me each human being is unique and this should be enough without the need for labels. Unfortunately our evolution through necessity has created this 'friend or foe' mechanism, which immediately separates peoples into group structure....'this if you don't agree with me then you are against and therefore not in my tribe'. We are programmed to constantly look for differences, including within our own tribe. This is why tribes invariably splinter into sub-groups and so on, and can actually end up becoming opposed to each other.</p>
<p>The temptation for the belief in irrational thoughts or wants is strong and paradoxically many atheists will have a mirror issue to religious people, in having to reaffirm to themselves their non-faith. The need in life to push against something or create an identity can help provide a construct and daresay purpose. As children we have only basic needs, one of which is just simply to experience fun. Yet as we develop into adults we seem to arbitrarily attach badges and labels to create what we consider is a more appealing identify.</p>
<p>How we create our individual personality is interesting, apparently there is evidence to show that up to 50% of our personality is hereditary (attributable to two genomes just recently discovered- see the book ‘Personality- what makes you the way you are’ by Daniel Nettle).</p>
<p> :)</p> Cheryl:
Let's agree to disa…tag:atheistnexus.org,2011-07-16:2182797:Comment:14344492011-07-16T20:54:31.007ZJohn Jubinskyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JohnJubinsky
<p>Cheryl:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Let's agree to disagree.</p>
<p>Cheryl:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Let's agree to disagree.</p> John,
I am speaking calmly h…tag:atheistnexus.org,2011-07-16:2182797:Comment:14341212011-07-16T17:14:05.438ZCheryl Kerkinhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/CherylKerkin
John,<br></br>
<br></br>
I am speaking calmly here. You feel I misrepresented you and willfully and deliberately so. For what? I don't know. I hate hurting people. But you did that to me. I do understand what you have said.<br></br>
<br></br>
I never did get an apology from you for a remark that actually had me struggling not to cry - big baby as I no doubt am. (And you're a bit of a baby yourself if you think I used 'profanities' for goodness sake!). Although I disagreed with the use of the word altruism, I…
John,<br/>
<br/>
I am speaking calmly here. You feel I misrepresented you and willfully and deliberately so. For what? I don't know. I hate hurting people. But you did that to me. I do understand what you have said.<br/>
<br/>
I never did get an apology from you for a remark that actually had me struggling not to cry - big baby as I no doubt am. (And you're a bit of a baby yourself if you think I used 'profanities' for goodness sake!). Although I disagreed with the use of the word altruism, I knew you were almost flippantly trying to describe me as a thoughtless and selfish person.<br/>
<br/>
I felt so hurt and casually misunderstood. As I said, my hands were shaking all through my first response to you, so at odds with my fundamental motivations and ideals was your slur. But you haven't made an effort to try and follow what I'm questioning. Which is not your motivation to do good but the continual definition of 'good' as 'altruism'. This is a philosophical disagreement.<br/>
<br/>
Quote/"Very respectfully if you think the world doesn't have a handle on golden rule morality or that nobody subscribes to it I suggest that you get psychological help"./<br/>
<br/>
And here you do it again. You insist I am some type of immoral person - I have said over and over, this is also MY foundation stone of a moral code. Where on earth have I said "nobody subscibes to it"! And even with my affirmation of this several times you insist I don't hold by it and "need psychological help".<br/>
<br/>
Put simply, I am saying that real altruism probably doesn't exist. The mutual support we give others, although at a cost to ourselves in the short term is part of our mental wiring to ensure the survival of our communities. If we were all truly altruistic I'm sure we'd have died out long ago.<br/>
<br/>
The same with our egos. We need an ego to survive. Without these things we'd just offer ourselves up for medical research right now. But then everyone else would too, so we wouldn't need medical research. And so on. This is not a trivial point, but one that we should understand in order to feel for our fellow humans and not judge them harshly. Especially not for so small a thing as vanity. That's my view.<br/>
<br/>
Please do not extrapolate from that that I don't care a damn for anyone. I'm not sure why you keep doing that. No matter what I say, you interpret me as saying I don't support 'golden rule morality'. When I keep saying the opposite. I know that is your view too. I am merely questioning, whether real altruism exists and whether it's a good idea to imply that unless you live in a pure altruistic way, then you are a morally bankrupt person.<br/>
<br/>
When something may be impossible, if not dangerous to our survival, I suggest we bring the bar down. Do as you would be done by. Be happy. I think those simple precepts are as good as we need.<br/>
<br/>
I took such offence at your first post to me because, even though I didn't agree that altruism was possible (or desirable in survivalist terms, as I've tried so hard to explain), I could tell that for you the word stood in for "doing good for others" and you were telling me, someone you didn't know at all, that I considered this to be "at best superfluous".<br/>
<br/>
No-one I have ever known has ever had reason to describe me this way. Yet you keep doing it. I won't have it. You are mistaken and very obviously not reading what I put or reading but not thinking.<br/>
<br/>
I suggest most people try to do good. We are hard wired to do so. We empathise, unlike many animals. Again, because we need each other to survive.<br/>
<br/>
I support secularism - strongly - and I've given some clear reasons why. And I try to treat people as I would wish to be treated. Is this clear? Or do you think I'm lying? I really don't know.<br/>
<br/>
I assure you I understand you. I don't see you as bad. Why would I? I am debating the words and terms you use and their possible unhelpfulness in terms of atheistic philosophy.<br/>
<br/>
The post you didn't read is simply a copy and paste from another website from a blogger obviously having a similar discussion with someone else. He makes some different points. Perhaps better than me.<br/>
<br/>
Since you "can't stomach" my words and thoughts anymore, so unpalatable am I, it may be easier to read than you think. Quote: "Please, I beg you, al…tag:atheistnexus.org,2011-07-16:2182797:Comment:14332212011-07-16T13:12:29.471ZJohn Jubinskyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JohnJubinsky
<p>Quote: "Please, I beg you, allow yourself ordinary humanity, not this aspiration to what you believe to be your self-elevating 'altruism', which doesn't really exist."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>(No tag again ergo the quote.)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I started reading the response you wrote containing the above quote and it became so ridiculous to me that I couldn't finish it nor stomach looking at the one you posted under it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Don't tell me that I am not altruistic and am attempting to appear to…</p>
<p>Quote: "Please, I beg you, allow yourself ordinary humanity, not this aspiration to what you believe to be your self-elevating 'altruism', which doesn't really exist."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>(No tag again ergo the quote.)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I started reading the response you wrote containing the above quote and it became so ridiculous to me that I couldn't finish it nor stomach looking at the one you posted under it.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Don't tell me that I am not altruistic and am attempting to appear to be for self-elevating reasons when I know my motives. Moreover, don't tell me that I do not know what is good for people in a golden rule sense when in literally every civilized society in the world people who don't know this are considered to be insane.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Very respectfully if you think the world doesn't have a handle on golden rule morality or that nobody subscribes to it I suggest that you get psychological help.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm sorry you couldn't relate to me without resorting to profanity. I respect you but do not find you to be very entertaining in this regard. Neither was I entertained by your remark that my interacting with you as I have had something to do with your being female. I have made multiple posts in multiple discussions over a long period of time in AN that might change your mind (if it exists in good faith) if you care to research them. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>Very respectfully, despite you responses I am not at all convinced that you find anything wrong with my positions but rather that you have been throwing up a lot of flack simply because you freely care very little to be a Secular Humanist in the mode that I have advocated.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I have presented my positions very clearly on several occasions and in this do not see the need to present them again.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Very respectfully, I would like for this discussion to end now. If you have further comments to make I hope you afford me the grace of making them civilly but in any case I do not expect to respond.</p> QUOTE/My stance is that by de…tag:atheistnexus.org,2011-07-16:2182797:Comment:14313542011-07-16T02:40:24.830ZCheryl Kerkinhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/CherylKerkin
<p>QUOTE/My stance is that by definition an altruistic Atheist is a Humanistic one (by my definition) that rejects egotism and narcissism./</p>
<p>Apologies, I don't really want to drag this out much longer either. I was looking up some definitions and came across this <a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/essays/egoism.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">ATHEISTIC WEBSITE</a> which explains my view very well and seems to be an essay in a conflicting response to someone very like the one we…</p>
<p>QUOTE/My stance is that by definition an altruistic Atheist is a Humanistic one (by my definition) that rejects egotism and narcissism./</p>
<p>Apologies, I don't really want to drag this out much longer either. I was looking up some definitions and came across this <a href="http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/essays/egoism.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">ATHEISTIC WEBSITE</a> which explains my view very well and seems to be an essay in a conflicting response to someone very like the one we have been having. Well, I'm not sure you had any desire to debate. Just to loftily shoo me away. From the site :</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"Altruism, like the doctrine of free will, is a sheer delusion. Men are motivated in their behavior, whether good or bad, by the inexorable demands of self-interest. The kindest, the noblest act in the world, as well as the basest, springs from a desire for self-satisfaction. Why bedrape the fact with tinsel trappings about "our love of others"? Even our "self-sacrifices'' and "selt-denials" give us satisfaction.</p>
<p>I write for realists, not for those who crave sugary pap. My statement --"awful'' to Mr. Nicholas -- that I do things because they give me satisfaction, and not through altruistic motives, will be understood by everyone who appreciates the motivating factors that underlie behavior. Everything that gives me satisfaction is determined by my likes and dislikes; these, in turn, are determined by my whole conditioning. If writing for a Fundamentalist paper gave me greater satisfaction than writing for The Truth Seeker, I would probably be writing for the religious press. As it does not, and since I despise religion, I am doing what is natural in the case: writing for The Truth Seeker "as a matter of habit". And isn't Mr. Nicholas advocating his opinions as "a matter of habit"? Isn't his own conditioning responsible for everything he does?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Mr. Nicholas states that he too, dislikes "the sentimental claptrap" and boasting of pseudo-altruists". He should. Their effusions are nauseating. They are, in fact, the chief cause of my criticism of the Humanist movement, which is constantly prating of its "love of mankind". Those who talk in this way talk like politicians on the eve of an election. Give me the men who never use these honeyed phrases and nine times out of ten they are doing more substantial good in the world than those who boast of their "altruistic" service.</p>
<p>I subscribe to the Hobbes school of thought rather than to that of Auguste Comte and the English Positivists, who formulated "altruism" "as a convenient antithesis to egoism", This "convenient antithesis" is a pure perversion of the facts that underlie behavior -- and I dislike perversions whether they are "convenient" or otherwise.</p>
<p>Altruism, therefore, is a false and pernicious doctrine: false because it ignores the basic facts that determine conduct; pernicious because it would have us love all mankind. This, by the nature of things, is impossible. He who says he loves all mankind is either soft in the head or a liar.</p>
<p>Ethically considered, altruism is a corroding and demoralizing doctrine. No one can love all mankind, or all men. We cannot love the child-beater, the swindler who defrauds his victims, the cruel Inquisitor, the Gestapo agent. We cannot love the hordes of human jackals that have reddened the pages of history or the billions of persons who have lived on the misery of others. Neither can we love those who pollute the world with tyranny and oppression. To say we do, is sheer hypocrisy.</p>
<p>Love is that feeling of tenderness and devotion which we bestow on those who are nearest and dearest to us and who give us our greatest satisfaction. It is an exalted gratification. As such, it is a limited and restricted emotion. To love all mankind is an impossibility. To claim to do so, is to act the hypocrite."</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p> Quote/Altruism according to W…tag:atheistnexus.org,2011-07-15:2182797:Comment:14312282011-07-15T23:39:23.399ZCheryl Kerkinhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/CherylKerkin
<p>Quote/Altruism according to Webster is the unselfish regard for the welfare of others. I feel that you are trying to depict it as requiring self-sacrifice. I would certainly kill somebody in self-defense if it were necessary and this would not be inconsistent with altruism because the alternative of allowing him to kill me would be less good for him than the losing of his own life./</p>
<p>Unless you have made some typing errors this is stunningly arrogant! You would kill in self defence…</p>
<p>Quote/Altruism according to Webster is the unselfish regard for the welfare of others. I feel that you are trying to depict it as requiring self-sacrifice. I would certainly kill somebody in self-defense if it were necessary and this would not be inconsistent with altruism because the alternative of allowing him to kill me would be less good for him than the losing of his own life./</p>
<p>Unless you have made some typing errors this is stunningly arrogant! You would kill in self defence because it would be better for your attacker to be dead than alive...how the hell would you know!! Are you omniscient?! Why can't you just admit that you'd do it out of self-defence? Which, yes, would be self interest. We have developed to survive, like all animals.</p>
<p>Please, I beg you, allow yourself ordinary humanity, not this aspiration to what you believe to be your self-elevating 'altruism', which doesn't really exist. (I would agree that altruism can seem to exist and may exist from parents to children. But we could easily see that as biologically hard-wired into our responses for the sake of the survival of the species. But it's still a wonderful and life affirming necessity).</p>
<p>You're thinking seems hair-shirt and convoluted and leads you down a very worrying alley.</p>
<p>There is a very slight change of tone from you in your last post. You have addressed me all along with this sweeping moral judgement of my character, without knowing me at all. Also a tone of a complete right to do so. I feel you would not have addressed a man this way. And I think this is tied into your idea that egotism and narcissism must be suppressed.</p>
<p>I suspect you of seeing women as a representative of the above characteristics, more than men, and of feeling rather superior to anyone with a smidgeon of such. You didn't bother answering my charge that you have a problem with me, outside of our disagreement here. Otherwise why would you address me in such a lofty and sanctimonious way from the start?</p>
<p>A real debate could have been had. You still don't bother to answer my genuine curiousity and puzzlement over some of your views. You make lazy statements back at me. As though.."That is that. I have spoken and you are wasting my time."</p>
<p>I have felt quite nastily misunderstood by you. But altruism is your watchword apparently. Yet your main observation is that I am peskily disagreeing to fake 'sounding right'.</p>
<p>I have taken a long time writing these posts to you, and re-read and checked them before posting. You continue to dismiss my deeply thought out rebuttals as now no more than me being a deliberate nuisance as here QUOTE "I hope you are not assigning your own definitions to words, (example??) intentionally misrepresenting me or confusing my positions in order to make yourself sound right."</p>
<p>And when I expressed my shock and hurt at your casual insults to my whole character you showed no sympathy or apology. I wasn't worth it it seems. And now I need swatting away as the superfluous creature you see me as. Not agreeing with you for very good reasons is not an option for the likes of me. I suspect you of misogyny.</p>
<p>QUOTE/"I feel that you have understood this all along but have reacted as you have simply because you disagree with it. That is, I think you in fact endear egotism and narcissism at least to some extent and in this are no more than lukewarm toward Secular Humanism"/</p>
<p>Have you understood anything I've said? My arguments for secularism? I understand very well what you're saying. "Endearing egotism and narcissism" seem to be serious transgressions in your eyes, oddly. There are so many bad things a human being can do yet I am truly baffled about your worries over "egotism" and "narcissism". No I don't mind them, except as I said, narcissism is really a mental disorder. Everyone has an ego - your's comes over very strongly - and even with 'extra ego' I fail to see why you think atheists should work on 'suppressing' this. In most religions there are many constant admonitions against vanity, enjoyment, following your own desires and yes, egotism. This is manifest in all the ways women are trained within religion to cover themselves, to not assert, not embellish and 'good girls' don't pile on the make-up, the sexy clothes, the swagger.</p>
<p>We are atheists, there is no need for that. Wanting to be attractive, to adorn, to live life playfully and to express oneself in any way one wishes - including men - is allowed. You can have your odd ideas about atheists 'should' be more this, and 'should' be less that, but why on earth pick these things that are impossible to suppress (unless you are forcing and faking suppression for appearance's sake, leading to unconscious hypocrisy ), why not concern yourself with the whole of humanity and the seriously damaging things human can do? Why have an austere opinion about atheists appearing more selfless than the rest of the population? We already appear to behave better anyway.</p>
<p>I also try to follow the golden rule, as do so many, and I think the push for stronger secularism in all countries is almost an emergency. I simple don't need to attach the name of a charity (even tho' <span style="text-decoration: underline;">I am a member</span>) to both those things to get behind them. But, mystifyingly, you believe without that word, you say I can't think what I've told you I think. Many people in the world haven't heard of humanism but follow and support those precepts. </p>
<p>I think atheists ought not to set limits or lay out rules for each other. That's religion. If theists misunderstand us it won't be addressed by us knocking ourselves out to 'appear' more 'pure and selfless' than them. Those things deform the religious mind. They don't allow for ordinary humanity, and the lovableness of most of us, even with our egos, which help us survive. Even you John. </p> The thing with bio chemistry…tag:atheistnexus.org,2011-07-14:2182797:Comment:14267202011-07-14T11:31:27.625ZAlicehttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/AliceCarr
<p>The thing with bio chemistry is that you can't decide when it 'should' and 'shouldn't' come into play.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>slippery slope theory .... I don't go for it generally - based on a hunch - not on stats at this stage...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And sure we need to get as much evidence as possible to make choices about how we conduct our lives and what we choose to believe. Sometimes intuition is backed up by science and sometimes the facts are counter intuitive - but intuition, bio chemistry…</p>
<p>The thing with bio chemistry is that you can't decide when it 'should' and 'shouldn't' come into play.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>slippery slope theory .... I don't go for it generally - based on a hunch - not on stats at this stage...</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And sure we need to get as much evidence as possible to make choices about how we conduct our lives and what we choose to believe. Sometimes intuition is backed up by science and sometimes the facts are counter intuitive - but intuition, bio chemistry and feelings do have an effect on us all the time - men and women do differ slightly on average - not sure how much - but from what I understand women have more connections between both sides of their brain, whereas men are better at dealing with things separately and aren't as connected for verbally expressing their 'feelings'.</p> Quote: "You strike me as some…tag:atheistnexus.org,2011-07-14:2182797:Comment:14269202011-07-14T11:12:59.280ZJohn Jubinskyhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/JohnJubinsky
Quote: "You strike me as someone with a religious hangover. You very arbitrarily conflate altruism with being a humanist. I've asked you if you mean humanitarian but you haven't clarified."<br></br>
<br></br>
(Still no reply tag ergo the quote.)<br></br>
<br></br>
Please be fair. In three of my posts that I know you have read I defined Secular Humanism as golden rule morality without deities. I don't think the discussion can be meaningful if you start with a misrepresentation of me and then found a lot of…
Quote: "You strike me as someone with a religious hangover. You very arbitrarily conflate altruism with being a humanist. I've asked you if you mean humanitarian but you haven't clarified."<br/>
<br/>
(Still no reply tag ergo the quote.)<br/>
<br/>
Please be fair. In three of my posts that I know you have read I defined Secular Humanism as golden rule morality without deities. I don't think the discussion can be meaningful if you start with a misrepresentation of me and then found a lot of criticism in it.<br/>
<br/>
Altruism according to Webster is the unselfish regard for the welfare of others. I feel that you are trying to depict it as requiring self-sacrifice. I would certainly kill somebody in self-defense if it were necessary and this would not be inconsistent with altruism because the alternative of allowing him to kill me would be less good for him than the losing of his own life.<br/>
<br/>
According to what I feel you are depicting altruism to be altruistic parents would not unhypocritically be able to discipline their own children. The definition of altruism then is completely consistent with my definition of Secular Humanism.<br/>
<br/>
I hope you are not assigning your own definitions to words, intentionally misrepresenting me or confusing my positions in order to make yourself sound right.<br/>
<br/>
In complete context my posts assert my opinion that Atheism has fallen victim to theism in being able to win the masses because it has the stigma of being thought of as for amoral or immoral people whereas theism is thought of as being for good people. Accordingly, I have advocated that for the good of Atheism (not to mention people in general) it should more vigorously take the direction of Secular Humanism (and for the 4th time I mean according to my definition of SH). Necessarily, taking this direction more vigorously would involve a more vigorous rejection of egotism and narcissism.<br/>
<br/>
I hope you see that in essence I am talking about are three things: altruism, egotism and narcissism. Very simply I am advocating that Atheists defend altruism while rejecting egotism and narcissism.<br/>
<br/>
I feel that you have understood this all along but have reacted as you have simply because you disagree with it. That is, I think you in fact endear egotism and narcissism at least to some extent and in this are no more than lukewarm toward Secular Humanism (and for the 5th time I mean according to my definition of it).<br/>
<br/>
Perhaps we should end this discussion simply on the grounds that we do not understand each other. I agree with you about accept…tag:atheistnexus.org,2011-07-14:2182797:Comment:14263582011-07-14T08:22:43.937ZNoah Petersenhttp://atheistnexus.org/profile/NoahPetersen
<p>I agree with you about accepting our emotions in part; however, I do not accept that my emotions should come into play when it comes into my interpretation of the universe. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>This leads to a slippery slope where religious people can make the claim that we are Atheists because we don't "believe" or "feel" like there is a higher power. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't doubt the existence of a higher power based on my emotions, I doubt the idea of higher powers or dieties because there…</p>
<p>I agree with you about accepting our emotions in part; however, I do not accept that my emotions should come into play when it comes into my interpretation of the universe. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>This leads to a slippery slope where religious people can make the claim that we are Atheists because we don't "believe" or "feel" like there is a higher power. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't doubt the existence of a higher power based on my emotions, I doubt the idea of higher powers or dieties because there is no scientific evidence to support those claims, and because there is science to explain the origins of life and the creation of our entire universe.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't need to read a sonnet or a poem about there being no god. This is why some Christians need "Intelligent Design" to try to use psuedoscience to mis-represent facts, but no Atheist has ever tried to appeal to a religious persons feelings to try and convince them about the lack of a higher power.</p>